Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…

Another supposed Contradiction is pag. 159. recited. He argued [That faith on which Simon Magus was baptized, is that which admitteth to Baptism. But Simons faith fell short of saving and justifying.] To this Mr. Blake saith I give a sudden answer, viz. [concedo totum, sed de sideratur conclusio] And he adds [He is certainly much to seek both in syllogism and common reason, that could not infer, and could not know that I left the Reader to infer that [therefore; A Faith that is short of justifying entitles to baptism] and so I have the whole in question yielded, and that which was once said would make foul work in the Church if granted] To this I reply. 1. I shall not presume to say that you are much to seek either in Syllogism or common reason. •ut I think it meet to say that I pity the world, and especially hasty inconsiderate Readers that must be troubled and abused by their writings that understand not what they speak to. I pray peruse your Argument again, and see whether any more will follow than this [Therefore a faith short of saving or justifying admitteth to baptism.] And this I granted, taking Simons faith to be an assent conjunct with a profession of saving faith (as most Interpreters do that I have seen; expounding [he believed] by [be professed to believe, and had some conv•ction.]) But was the word [entitled] in your Argument? And might I not well say desideratur conclusio? The question which you would have concluded ⟨p. 204⟩was that which now you conclude [It entitleth to Baptism] And then there is more in your Conclusion than in your Premisses. Admitting is not Entitling. I granted you oft before that we may Admit an Hypocrite (yea a stark Infidel) if professing true faith, he require the Sacrament: But I denied that in strict or proper sense they had Title to it, or might demand it. I may justly and necessarily give, if required, what another unjustly requireth; yet upon this gross oversight of my obvious sense, Mr. Blake goes away as with a full concession of his Cause: And no doubt in some mens eyes hath carried it.

Another supposed Contradiction is pag. 159. recited. He argued [That faith on which Simon Magus was baptized, is that which admitteth to Baptism. But Simons faith fell short of saving and justifying.] To this Mr. Blake sa•th I give a sudden answer, viz. [concedo totum, sed de sideratur conclusio] And he adds [He is certainly much to seek both in syllogism and common reason, that could not infer, and could not know that I left the Reader to infer that [therefore; A Faith that is short of justifying entitles to baptism] and so I have the whole in question yielded, and that which was once said would make foul work in the Church if granted] To this I reply. 1. I shall not presume to say that you are much to seek either in Syllogism or common reason. ut I think it meet to say that I pity the world, and especially hasty inconsiderate Readers that must be troubled and abused by their writtings that understand not what they speak to. I pray peruse your Arment again, and see whether any more will follow than this [Therefore a faith short of saving or justifying admitteth to baptism.] And this I granted, taking Simons faith to be an assent conjunct with a profession of saving faith (as most Interpreters do that I have seen; expounding [he believed] by [be professed to believe, and had some convction.]) But was the word [entitled] in your Argument? And might I not well say desideratur conclusio? The question which you would have concluded